If the m³ needed a special name, it would have it because it did have it. It
used to be called the stere. It is still used in some courtiers for logs
(only). Had the name been needed, it would have survived.
Concerning the cm³ and, particularly, dm³ (it has a special name today, the
litr; that originally was a unit, coined with the stere), both are needed to
avoid using the 10³ scientific notation in daily life. Using the cubic c and d
also, conveniently, fits the 3-digits prefix system, in this case the m, c, and
d representing power-difference of thousand, not ten.
Stan Jakuba
----- Original Message -----
From: STANLEY DOORE
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: 09 Apr 08, Wednesday 08:32
Subject: [USMA:44477] Re: FPLA 2010
I disagree with the NIST in the case of kL because L is used widely and well
known in the public sector. Are you suggesting that mm^3 be used instead of
L?
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: John M. Steele
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:09 AM
Subject: [USMA:44476] Re: FPLA 2010
*It is harder to visual than 1 m³
*It uses a prefixed, incoherent "special name" unit when a coherent
unit fits better.
*NIST SP811 says you shouldn't use prefixes greater than 1 with the
liter.
Would you buy 1 mt of meat instead of 1 kg? The tonne only makes
sense for amounts larger than 1000 kg, and the liter only for amounts less than
1 m³. Among the other "special names", I notice the are is now deprecated when
standing alone and is only accepted as the hectare. It probably only makes
sense between 1 ha and 100 ha, then you think about square kilometers. (Some
relaxation of rules OK in tables to retain same units through a column)
--- On Wed, 4/8/09, STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]> wrote:
From: STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44474] Re: FPLA 2010
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 7:35 AM
The kL is the same size as a cubic metre. So what's the problem?
The litre is a very commonly used volume by virtually all people.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hooper
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:58 PM
Subject: [USMA:44468] Re: FPLA 2010
On Apr 6 , at 8:18 AM, John M. Steele wrote:
I know you love the kiloliter, but I personally find the cubic
meter a lot easier to visual. You know, it's about 1 m x 1 m x 1 m. :)
--- On Mon, 4/6/09, STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]>
wrote:
To go along with putting L (liter) first, (but) I suggest using the kL
(kiloliter)
in place of a cubic meter in non-engineering (public) usage. kL is much easier
to use and is more understandable by the public.I go along with John on this.
Stanley may think of a kilotitre to be easier to visualize, but I don't. I keep
trying to visualize a thousand one-litre bottles of a beverage (or five hundred
2 L bottles, etc.). None of that works for me.
But a cube 1 m long and 1 m wide and 1 m high is easy to
visualize. Before I retired, I concluded that my nice big desk in my lab
occupied a space very close to a cubic metre. It was a bit longer than 1 m but
a bit shorter than 1 m, and had a width of just about 1 m, so it came out quite
close to 1 m^3.
I used that as my example of a cubic metre for students in my
metric and in my physics classes.
Bill Hooper
1810 mm tall
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
==========================
SImplification Begins With SI.
==========================
